HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

This forum will be open on Sept. 1, 2016.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#16

Post by rtschl » Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:27 pm

I'm aware of more than one security company that "employs" individuals for church security through their company and they "work" for the security company at their church. The individuals are not paid by the security company but the security company is paid by the churches to cover insurance and other costs and expenses. Some charge a lot more than others. :grumble

It's a great niche market to go after since the state currently makes it illegal to do so without being licensed. This bill goes a long way to remedy that.
Ron
NRA Member


ghentry
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:34 pm
Location: Katy, Texas

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#17

Post by ghentry » Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:32 am

Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.


bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#18

Post by bblhd672 » Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:44 am

ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.
It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?


TexasCajun
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
Location: La Marque, TX

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#19

Post by TexasCajun » Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:35 am

AJSully421 wrote:So, when it says that you cannot give the appearance of a "personal protection officer", don't most body guards wear dark colored suits with ties?

Because, guess what I wear to church each Sunday...
I think that in this case it could be said that the PPO is trying to give the appearance of regular folks. So if the PPO is standing in a room full of people dressed in dark suits & ties, it's he who is trying to look like the non-PPOs & not the room full of people trying to look like the PPO.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012

User avatar

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1865
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#20

Post by parabelum » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:19 am

Meanwhile, in the State of Alabama...

"Alabama Senate votes to allow church to form police dept."

http://m.wbrc.com/myfoxal/db_345960/con ... d=Ui6u8Lh7
III%

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3984
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#21

Post by Jusme » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:40 am

bblhd672 wrote:
ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.
It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?

The government got the authority, when the security industry's lobby pushed them to outlaw anyone not specially "trained and licensed" to perform security duties. There was no exemption for churches, because at the time, church security, was not a major issue. Once churches wanted to form their own security teams, the security industry lobbyists, put the kaibash on it, to protect their money. When churches fell under attack, it was obvious that if they could require them to hire certified security people, there could be money made.
Since most churches, especially smaller churches, can't afford to hire security companies, they have either have to rely on the goodness of others, to not attack them, or do without. This will exempt churches from that requirement, as it should have been in the beginning.
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:


bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#22

Post by bblhd672 » Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:47 am

Jusme wrote:
bblhd672 wrote:
ghentry wrote:Our government at work. This bill would say that you can BE volunteer security for the church, you just can't CALL yourself security by using the word security on garments. Got it.
It occurs to me to ask "where exactly does the government get the authority to legislate how a religious organization conducts its internal business?"
Also, "where exactly does the security industry get the authority to say that religious organizations must conduct its internal business under their guidelines?"
What's next? Legislating what the religious organization can and cannot say?

The government got the authority, when the security industry's lobby pushed them to outlaw anyone not specially "trained and licensed" to perform security duties. There was no exemption for churches, because at the time, church security, was not a major issue. Once churches wanted to form their own security teams, the security industry lobbyists, put the kaibash on it, to protect their money. When churches fell under attack, it was obvious that if they could require them to hire certified security people, there could be money made.
Since most churches, especially smaller churches, can't afford to hire security companies, they have either have to rely on the goodness of others, to not attack them, or do without. This will exempt churches from that requirement, as it should have been in the beginning.
I understand where the government believes it got the authority, but is it constitutional to restrict what activities a religious organization performs on its own property?


gugisman
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:47 am

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#23

Post by gugisman » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:59 am


User avatar

safety1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:13 am

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#24

Post by safety1 » Wed May 03, 2017 8:32 am

I know HB421 has made it to Calendars, hoping it makes it out. What are ya'll hearing?
We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. ~ Ronald Reagan ~
NRA - Life Member

User avatar

Lambda Force
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: HB421 Reported Favorably as Substituted

#25

Post by Lambda Force » Thu May 04, 2017 9:07 pm

bblhd672 wrote: I understand where the government believes it got the authority, but is it constitutional to restrict what activities a religious organization performs on its own property?
No more or less than restricting what activities an individual performs on their property.
Tyranny is identified by what is legal for government employees but illegal for the citizenry.

Locked

Return to “2017 Texas Legislative Session”